Barriers and facilitators to program directors' use of the medical education literature: a qualitative study.
Knowledge translation
Medical education literature
Postgraduate training
Journal
BMC medical education
ISSN: 1472-6920
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Educ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088679
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jan 2022
19 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
08
04
2021
accepted:
10
12
2021
entrez:
20
1
2022
pubmed:
21
1
2022
medline:
22
1
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It is unclear how often frontline clinical teachers are using this literature and its evidence base in teaching and assessment. Our study purpose was to examine postgraduate program director perspectives on the utilization and integration of evidence-based medical education literature in their teaching and assessment practices. The authors conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a convenience sample of current and former program directors from across Canada. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed inductively to distil pertinent themes. In 2017, 11 former and current program directors participated in interviews. Major themes uncovered included the desire for time-efficient and easily adaptable teaching and assessment tools. Participants reported insufficient time to examine the medical education literature, and preferred that it be 'synthesized for them'. (i.e., Best evidence guidelines). Participants recognised continuing professional development and peer to peer sharing as useful means of education about evidence-based tools. Barriers to the integration of the literature in practice included inadequate time, lack of financial compensation for teaching and assessment, and the perception that teaching and assessment of trainees was not valued in academic promotion. Faculty development offices should consider the time constraints of clinical teachers when planning programming on teaching and assessment. To enhance uptake, medical education publications need to consider approaches that best meet the needs of a targeted audiences, including frontline clinical teachers. This may involve novel methods and formats that render evidence and findings from their studies more easily 'digestible' by clinical teachers to narrow the knowledge to practice gap.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
It is unclear how often frontline clinical teachers are using this literature and its evidence base in teaching and assessment. Our study purpose was to examine postgraduate program director perspectives on the utilization and integration of evidence-based medical education literature in their teaching and assessment practices.
METHODS
METHODS
The authors conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with a convenience sample of current and former program directors from across Canada. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed inductively to distil pertinent themes.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In 2017, 11 former and current program directors participated in interviews. Major themes uncovered included the desire for time-efficient and easily adaptable teaching and assessment tools. Participants reported insufficient time to examine the medical education literature, and preferred that it be 'synthesized for them'. (i.e., Best evidence guidelines). Participants recognised continuing professional development and peer to peer sharing as useful means of education about evidence-based tools. Barriers to the integration of the literature in practice included inadequate time, lack of financial compensation for teaching and assessment, and the perception that teaching and assessment of trainees was not valued in academic promotion.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
Faculty development offices should consider the time constraints of clinical teachers when planning programming on teaching and assessment. To enhance uptake, medical education publications need to consider approaches that best meet the needs of a targeted audiences, including frontline clinical teachers. This may involve novel methods and formats that render evidence and findings from their studies more easily 'digestible' by clinical teachers to narrow the knowledge to practice gap.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35045845
doi: 10.1186/s12909-022-03104-4
pii: 10.1186/s12909-022-03104-4
pmc: PMC8772128
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
45Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Perspect Med Educ. 2014 Jun;3(3):222-232
pubmed: 24925627
BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2
pubmed: 8555924
Acad Med. 1990 Feb;65(2):122-6
pubmed: 2302299
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Aug 05;15:127
pubmed: 26242219
Acad Med. 2015 Aug;90(8):1067-76
pubmed: 26107881
Acad Med. 2013 Mar;88(3):421-7
pubmed: 23348095
BMJ. 2015 Jun 26;350:h3445
pubmed: 26116693
Med Educ. 2011 Mar;45(3):227-38
pubmed: 21299598
Can Med Educ J. 2021 Apr 30;12(2):e57-e62
pubmed: 33995720
Med Teach. 2012;34(6):468-73
pubmed: 22489980
Med Educ. 2014 Aug;48(8):750-60
pubmed: 25039731
Med Teach. 1999;21(6):553-62
pubmed: 21281174
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):13-24
pubmed: 16557505
BMJ. 2003 Jan 25;326(7382):213-6
pubmed: 12543841
Med Teach. 2019 Sep;41(9):1012-1022
pubmed: 31050311
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2012 Aug;17(3):305-10
pubmed: 22696095
Acad Med. 2013 Sep;88(9):1346-56
pubmed: 23887017
Acad Med. 2015 Apr;90(4):518-24
pubmed: 25470312
Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Jul;62(600):e511-21
pubmed: 22781999
J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Dec;20(6):793-802
pubmed: 25130323